I just check the Chinese version MA 200, counterpart of MN 22. MA200 also does not have such a statement “I declare ONLY suffering and its cessation”.
2 Likes
If the Buddha declares the second of the four positions in relation to the undeclared, and we are to infer this from MN120 where the undeclared are not mentioned (despite this being a painfully long sutta), then why does he say at DN9;
‘A Realized One exists after death …’ …
‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death …’ …
‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death …’ …
‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, anything else is wrong’?”
‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti?“This too has not been declared by me.”
“Etampi kho, poṭṭhapāda, mayā abyākataṁ: ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
Why do they do it again at MN63?
“There are several convictions that the Buddha has left undeclared; he has set them aside and refused to comment on them.
“yānimāni diṭṭhigatāni bhagavatā abyākatāni ṭhapitāni paṭikkhittāni:
For example: the cosmos is eternal, or not eternal, or finite, or infinite; the soul and the body are the same thing, or they are different things; after death, a Realized One still exists, or no longer exists, or both still exists and no longer exists, or neither still exists nor no longer exists.
‘sassato loko’tipi, ‘asassato loko’tipi, ‘antavā loko’tipi, ‘anantavā loko’tipi, ‘taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīran’tipi, ‘aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīran’tipi, ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi—
The Buddha does not explain these points to me.
tāni me bhagavā na byākaroti.
Basically @sunyo it seems to me that your argument relies, very heavily, on their being a meaning in the suttas that is esoteric, hidden, not explicated, not explicitly stated.
This hidden meaning is that when it appears that the buddha is not taking a view, not holding a conviction, not declaring something, not endorsing something, what they are really doing is correcting an (unstated) misconception on the part of the other speaker in the sutta, that is that there is self before death that is either destroyed or survives.
Why not just say that?
even the yamaka and related suttas, that form a tiny minority of the explanations given for the undeclared, don’t do this, prefering rather to attack the premise that a self outside the aggregates and the undeclared could be found or defined.
why not just say;
“Well, is there no such thing as suffering?”
‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, natthi dukkhan’ti?“It’s not that there’s no such thing as suffering.
‘Na kho, kassapa, natthi dukkhaṁ.Suffering is real.”
Atthi kho, kassapa, dukkhan’ti.
SN12.17
but with atta for dukkha and natthi for atthi?
But, as far as I am aware, this statement is simply never made, in over 10,000 suttas at over 4 million words, why spend so much time on painstakingly avoiding a statement of this sort and instead exhaustively refuting its opposite, while also saying, in suttas that occur in all four collections, in both languages, that positions of the type; “X exists”, “X doesn’t exist”, “both”, “neither”, are not declared by the buddha?
Also, while if you squint it might be just barely plausible that the
‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi
part of the undeclared points might be explained because concepts of a personal self are mistaken and therefore don’t apply after death (although again, in over 4 million words of teaching the buddha never says this explicitly, despite it being very easy to do so), I cannot fathom how you can shoehorn the
‘sassato loko’tipi, ‘asassato loko’tipi, ‘antavā loko’tipi, ‘anantavā loko’tipi,
part into this explination, how does my mistakenly taking myself to be a self bear at all on wether the universe is infinite or finite? or eternal or not? how does the “hidden assumption” argument work here?
And finally, I still have yet to here you or anyone else directly address the issue I have, that of the simile at MN72, the simile says
What do you think, Vaccha?
Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, vaccha,
Suppose a fire was burning in front of you. Would you know:
sace te purato aggi jaleyya, jāneyyāsi tvaṁ:
‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”
‘ayaṁ me purato aggi jalatī’”ti?“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”
“Sace me, bho gotama, purato aggi jaleyya, jāneyyāhaṁ:
‘ayaṁ me purato aggi jalatī’”ti.
how is this reconciled with the argument that the buddha meant us to interpret the simile as implying that the fire was not real to begin with?
Happy to hear from anyone with knowledge of the issue and a willingness to actually discuss the simile itself rather than other suttas.
1 Like
You know Stephen, it’s interesting, because I really can’t think of another view of the human condition that offers so much hope as Buddhism, in the sense that Buddha declares suffering and the possibility for its cessation - in this very life. Now. If you’re serious about it, you’ll be working on it now.
Dukkha is a pithy expression of the human condition. Anyone who wouldn’t say that life is suffering needs to go check themselves out, but look at some of the thinking available to the Western world: Calvinism - you’re all lost. There isn’t a single thing you can do about it, because it is God who will call you, or not; Catholicism - confess, repent, eat this very body of Christ, the Son of God who died on the cross to save us from our sins, and do what you’re told, or you’re excommunicated. You’re damned for all time. Exorcist City for you.
And that’s just religious stuff. There are vast traditions of humanism, coloured by centuries and millennia of cultural engagement.
So, going back to what I was saying, in terms of one of the greatest existential problems - a real problem - encountered by every single person that has preoccupied pretty much all religious thought and anyone who is at all sensitive to other people (in the West we call it the problem of evil) as far as I can see Buddha’s declaration of suffering and its cessation does mark his distinction in terms of what he holds out for the world.
Cheers.
4 Likes
Yes, I agree with everything you say in your post and hope that I didn’t say anything to the contrary.
One does not need to look further than the 4 Noble Truths to see an accurate description of the human condition and its remedy.
It’s wonderful and hopefully a source of great hope.
2 Likes
Hey Stephen, nothing contrary. It’s hard work. Even coming into present-mindedness can be traumatic and painful, depending on where people are coming from when the rubber hits the road. Coming to terms with yourself and the layers of it, is not a pleasant thing. Like I said before, I’ve seen big, rough, macho guys come off the oil patch, which is such a debilitating existence, bawl and bawl like babies as the come into, simply, feeling themselves - all the way down. And the one thing they do have when they come to speak of it, is that they discover they aren’t alone. They are surrounded by people who are listening, sitting quietly and nodding in empathy, understanding and compassionate support. It’s a long road. We are, after all, talking about addiction here. Even our dopamine-seratonin talk, he really wasn’t that far off. It’s not all he talks about, but he did need to incise it.
Oh, and I hope you caught my riff off Raccoon City and Resident Evil. 
4 Likes
Yes, very true indeed!
1 Like
Hi all, 
Hi Venerable,
I disagree. For one, that is not what the Kaccanagotta and Vajira Sutta portray. In the latter case, to say “there is nothing but suffering” in response to Mara’s ontological questions about a being, is not just avoiding speculation or something about running into the limits of language. It is a clear statement on what exists. That’s how the statement on suffering and its cessation can be read as well.
The statement of DN15 has to be read in context of the views of self, as I explained to Josephzizys. There are problems with language, namely that to say “a tathagata” to most people implies a something, a self. The problem described here is not that the Buddha’s insights are beyond description or that to use language is speculation.
Also, your reading of ‘only’, as Stephen seems to agree, would imply that he only declares these things, but that is not true. He declares a lot more. Eva applies to dukkha (“only suffering”) not to pannapemi (“I only declare”).
Hi Venerable,
That is my paraphrasing of it. I don’t think translations that convey meaning have to be word-for-word accurate. Regardless, I don’t think my general reading is ruled out by the grammar. To declare X or to declare “that there is” X are meaning-wise the same.
For example, in MN22, it makes no difference whether we translate “the ascetic Gotama declares the annihilation of an actually existing being” or “the ascetic Gotama declares that there is an annihilation of an actually existing being”. Idem for the statements on suffering and its cessation.
Or in modern English, to declare “war” or to declare “there is war/we’re at war” is for all purposes the same.
This is an argument based on what is not said. We get this all the time in Buddhism for some reason, but such arguments are flawed. It goes: “The Buddha doesn’t say exactly what I expect were this view right, so this view is wrong.” That’s not logically coherent. We have to go by what the text actually say, not by what they do not say.
That doesn’t make my interpretation esoteric or hidden at all. There’s also other evidence that points at this, but I wanted to focus on the statement about suffering and its cessation.
I didn’t. I haven’t mentioned those things at all here.
Similes by their nature are always imperfect. Also, you are again mixing up “without essence” for “not real”. I never said fires weren’t real.
Of relevance is SN22.95, where to the five similes about essenceless things we could also add that of fire.
4 Likes
Hi,
I’m not sure if we are in agreement or not, but the point I and others tried to make is that the Buddha declared many things.
I’m not entirely clear about the difference between ‘I only declare suffering’ and ‘I declare only suffering. ‘. Both statements seem to imply the Buddha only pointed out dukkha in his teachings, which is not true.
That’s exactly why I paraphrased it as “what I declare is that there is only suffering and a cessation of suffering”. I think you can see how this differs.
1 Like
All in all, this is really the most subtle point of all of Buddhism and arguably of all existence (pun intended). So personally I find discussing it on a forum like this not the most fruitful personally. If what I’ve said is unclear, apologies. I’ll respond a bit, mostly to provide clarity and refer to the main point here about the language/wording of the Pāli and translation.
I’m not entirely sure if we hold different views or if what we’re saying just differs in phrasing. I’m not sure how you are using the word ‘exists.’ Surely you know that to say something ‘truly exists’ — even if one says it is ‘not self’ or ‘dukkha’ — still posits a kind of self within experience which can be ‘objective,’ ‘independent,’ and ‘true.’ It still makes a statement about something beyond experience — which is conditioned, not existent or non-existent —, which is the problem with theories of self (they suppose something that is not in line with the reality of experience and speculate beyond it).
Conventionally speaking, ‘exists’ is okay. We exist. SuttaCentral exists. It’s a designation. But what we really mean is that the experience of these things is occurring. That experience is dependently arisen and impermanent. Therefore we can see it does not provide lasting happiness and is unreliable, so it is ‘dukkha.’ Everything that we experience, know, describe, imagine or fathom is of this nature, and so it is only dukkha. Even imagining something outside of this is just an imagining or proliferation which falls within the domain of dukkha. So all that can be declared or said about things is of dukkha and its cessation. Rather than Tathāgatas existing, not existing, etc. after death. These things cannot be declared; only dukkha can, as this is the scope of the ‘existence.’
So I am applying ‘only’ to ‘dukkha,’ not to ‘declares’ as you say. The Buddha is declaring only dukkha and its cessation — after proving with his interlocutor that this is all there is to talk about, rather than being concerned with other undeclared topics. But this should not be misconstrued into reified ideas of existence or non-existence which would be just as insidious as ideas of a ‘self.’
And while I am saying that ‘only’ applies to ‘dukkha,’ as in, the Buddha declares only dukkha and its cessation, not the cessation of a being or the true existence of something beyond conditioned experience — I don’t understand what people disagree about saying he ‘only declares’ these things. What else exactly does he declare? Realms of existence, rebirth, good/bad kamma, etc. all of these things in his teaching just boil down to being about dukkha and/or its cessation. They are all pointing to these things, and they also all “only are” these things in nature (again, without reifing ‘are’ or stepping beyond the undeclared).
I’ll probably leave it at that.
4 Likes
That strikes me as like if an art historian would go on about the greatness of Vermeer’s painting, his subtle use of light, etc. , and a critic would call out, ‘it’s only paint!’
Or, perhaps on a more serious note, after a person would report on the misery of people present in a war zone, would it right to reply, ‘they’re really only aggregates!’ ?
Thank you Venerable. This was beneficial for my mind. 
But @Sunyo you yourself are relying on what is not said!
see the bit you put in square brackets? :
sorry @Sunyo I did not mean you as in @Sunyo here, i meant you as in anyone who might like to try. Are you saying that there are different explanations for the different undeclared points? What evidence do you have for this?
by your argument all things by their nature are merely imperfection itself 
2 Likes
I don’t think this is it how the Buddha spoke. In SN22.94 for example he says:
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.
The assertion of something existing could hardly be more clear than this. Yet this doesn’t posit a self in any way in the aggregates.
The Buddha didn’t just know what exists, though. He also knows what does not exist. A fixed entity called Tathagata (i.e. a self) isn’t just beyond experience (if that’s what you’re implying). The Buddha has seen the whole range of experience and knows that there is no such entity. He knows there is only suffering, not a self. That’s how I see it, to clarify the difference I perceive between our views.
He said the statements on the Tathagata after death “don’t apply”, which means he knew something about them (namely that they were all based on a false assumption). It’s not just that they were beyond his experience or knowledge.
Our discussion turned into a lot of meta-discussion already, so perhaps we should leave it be. Either way, I added those brackets by inference from the suttas I referred to, to explain how I understand the statement. That is very different from arguing (effectively), “the Buddha didn’t put things in the way I would have put them if I were him and I had this view, so the argument is wrong”.
Indicative that the statements about the Tathagata are about a self, are also the following quotes from the two suttas I discussed:
saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne - “A tathagata is not found to actually or really exist.” (SN22.86)
Attani ca, bhikkhave, attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne - “A self or what belongs to a self is not found to actually or really exist.” (MN22)
The statements are on the same principle, as can be derived from their context and from the fact that these words are only found in these (equivalent) instances.
1 Like
respectfully I think this clearly misrepresents my argument, which was precisely that the buddha didn’t put things the way you want to put them, and that your square brackets demonstrate this fact.
So here again is where I get confused. It sounds like what you and others I have heard post here are saying is that only suffering exists, but then you post a qoute that sounds like you are saying that forms exist, and impermanence exists, and feelings exist, that change exists…
usually when someone says only they mean only that and not anything else, but am i to understand that what you mean is … something else?
I am honestly just not clear on what is being claimed here.
if only suffering exists then by definition forms don’t exist, because only suffering exists, and that is what only means.
so what is it @Sunyo ? is suffering and the absence of suffering the only 2 things that exist or are there at least eight things (forms, feelings, perceptions, choices, consciousness, suffering, impermanence and change)?
1 Like
I said “truly exists,” not just “exists” and then went on to give examples of saying things exist. And I’m not saying the Buddha didn’t declare the undeclared points because they’re beyond his experience or knowledge. I’m saying the questions themselves are unbeneficial for liberation and misdirected because they presupposes erroneous frameworks beyond the nature experience. And this can be known and seen through, not just left saying “we can’t know the answer” (which is also wrong; again cf DN 1, DN 15, etc.). I think you’ve misunderstood what I’ve tried to convey above — as it is very subtle and hard to express — so it’s probably best to just leave it aside for now. Always good to interact and discuss suttas venerable
3 Likes
This topic is already discussed by Bhante @sujato in other thread here:
Although in the past thread Bhante agreed with Bhikkhu Bodhi’s opinion, perhaps now Bhante has changed his mind 
2 Likes
Hello Venerable,
Well said.
Tks.
Unless I’m misunderstanding your point, this sounds like “If only water exists then by definition waves don’t exist.”
Dukkha manifests as forms; all forms are dukkha.
Same with perceptions, feelings, volitional formations, and consciousness.
All dukkha as various kinds and manifestations of experiences.
Those particular experiences are different and sometimes even pleasant, yet all are anicca, dukkha.
2 Likes
Venerable, this is in accordance with my meager understanding and I thank you for eloquent explanation. It benefits my mind and gives me strength and faith. Sincerely thankful for your words.
1 Like